ALEX KLEIMAN AND ALVA KLEIMAN, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
SAMUEL ZAP, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion For Mistrial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendants who are also counter-claimants, Alex Kleiman and Aviva Klei-man, appeal a final judgment based on a jury verdict in an automobile collision personal injury action. Appellants’ principal reliance is upon claimed error in the trial court’s failure to declare a mistrial upon the disclosure that the appellee-driver had been dismissed from a traffic charge growing out of the accident. The disclosure of the traffic charge was inadvertently made and is not a subject of an assignment of error. The failure of the court to declare a mistrial upon the disclosure of the dismissal of the traffic charge is not reversible error on this record because: (1) appellants failed to move for a mistrial and are not excused from failure to make the motion by their belief that the motion would have been fruitless, and (2) the court’s failure to declare a mistrial was harmless error under the facts of this case. Accord, Wallace v. Rashkow, Fla.App.1972, 270 So. 2d 743, 745.
We have examined the remaining points presented and find that they do not present reversible error. Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kinya v. Lifter, Inc., 489 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…timony, request a curative instruction, or move for a mistrial. Their failure to request such relief precludes them from asserting any error based on the testimony. Nadler v. Home Insurance Company, 339 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Kleiman v. Zap, 297 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). The denial of the Kinyas’ motion to strike another officer’s testimony regarding his conversation with the Kinyas clearly fell within the trial court’s discretion. A witness may relate the substance of a conversation which he had…
-
Nadler v. Home Ins. Co., 339 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…tances, the jury’s verdict may properly be set aside. Albertson v. Stark, 294 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). There are instances, however, where the trial court’s failure to declare a mistrial may not constitute reversible error. In Kleiman v. Zap, 297 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1974), this court affirmed a verdict in favor of the appellee-driver despite the fact that it had been disclosed inadvertently during the trial that he had been dismissed from a traffic charge growing out of the subject accident. It wa…
-
Grant v. Wester, 679 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…uly 21,1995, pending this court’s disposition of the present appeal, and denied a request that a supersedeas bond be posted.3 [*1305] Acceptance of Benefits Mr. Grant has thus received money under one part of the judgment.4 Compare Erwin v. Brooks, 297 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) with McDaniel Gift Shop, Inc. v. Balfe, 179 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965). An old case teaches the “general rule that one cannot ordinarily accept a benefit under a judgment or decree and then appeal from it, when the effect of h…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wallace v. Rashkow, 270 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)